| |
-------Original Message-------
Date: Thursday, June 19, 2003
01:00:37 PM
Janet,
In the original message, below you were
requested to answer what was not true in the statement of the
petition. You have not yet responded.
What you said in council was:
"I have a petition here before me
with 690 names within the community of Goulbourn, and I take
this very seriously. And I’ll read this to you. It says "We the
undersigned, reject the proposal of a pressurized sewage
forcemain from Munster putting private shallow wells, the
environment and human health at risk, when the safer alternative
of on-site treatment at Munster would protect health, benefit
the environment and cost much less." You know, I would sign
this. I would sign this in a flash …if it was true. But, it’s
not … it’s not true."
and
"This is not the SE trunk. This is
…. is a pipeline. This is not something that you drive a truck
down. The comparisons are ludicrous, and unfortunately, it’s
that …that fear mongering which has fostered 690 people signing
this petition."
Councillor Bloess said earlier in the same
meeting:
"Well, maybe I just add in
there that, that pipeline within the first year of operation,
had significant issues in it, including having 24-hour security
in Greens Creek valley where land was eroding and the pipeline
was exposed, and all kinds of issues, and if we’re not in
court still, we certainly were in court for a long period of
time on that one. That was a brand new pipeline. Perhaps
somebody on staff can tell us how long the (Bellcourt) pipeline,
which we’re rebuilding right now. How long that one lasted?
….It’s in the budget right now, last year and this year.
…It’s a pipeline you could drive a small
truck through. It apparently fell apart within half, …half of
its normal life span."
So your 'fear mongering" comment doesn't
relate to the petition statement, and all signatures were in
place days before Councillor Bloess' statement. The petition
statement itself, a reflection of threat/risk assessment that
you have written about in your community column, was the only
basis for peoples' desire to sign the petition.
Back to the question. Explain to us what is
not true, or be good to your word. Come to Richmond and sign the
petition "in a flash".
(Richmond)
Janet,
Your continued silence on the matter of our
question to you regarding the Richmond petition is unacceptable.
Six hundred and eighty signatures is not an insignificant
number. We are not a mere nuisance to you, we
pay your salary with our taxes. Six hundred and eighty people
have not been mislead, they are cognizant of the situation, and
understand the threat/vulnerability/risk scenario quite well.
And they are only the people who had an opportunity to provide
their signature. Many others hold the same opinion.
Despite the clear parallel between your own
published material and the statement of our petition, you have
said the petition was untrue. And you have dismissed our
concerns with a contemptuous toss of a copy of the document onto
the council table.
We have asked what is untrue in the statement
of the petition.
We expect an answer.
Noting that council has reopened the issue of
the leachate pipeline, we expect no less consideration of our
concerns.
|
|